TheAgitator.com
Bombshells in the Frederick Case
Wednesday, September 10th, 2008I inadvertently put up a post earlier this afternoon about the Ryan Frederick that’s actually going to be a full-fledged article for reason. Sorry if you commented, but I had to pull it down.
But here’s the story it’ll be based on. I’m sure you have a pretty good idea of what it’ll be about. Feel free to re-post.
Some pretty amazing revelations from the prosecution yesterday.
Bullshit. Not even in eco-nazi areas of California do the police pick up the casings of their own bullets and take them with them.
Based on everything that has come out on the informants, it’s pretty clear that these are extremely disreputable men. They may be telling the truth, but if I were on the jury, I sure as hell wouldn’t take the word of men of such abysmally low character in a matter that affects another man’s liberty.
This doesn’t smell right… I believe the prosecutor is largely trying to cover his rump, and the collective rumps of the cops. Since one of their own was killed, they have to string somebody up.
I don’t think this is going to fly…
They still don’t have any actual evidence that he was growing in his garage, do they? If they did, I cannot believe that they would not have made it public by now.
Did I miss something? What were the “pretty amazing revelations from the prosecution?”
That the defendant made “self-serving statements?”
That some Chesapeake residents have requested the change of venue?
That Frederick [allegedly] told the “burglar” that he had a “plan for the police?” Note that the government mouthpiece, umm, I mean, “reporter” didn’t use the word “allegedly.”
I didn’t note one new bit of “information” in that “news” story.
Wait, so he knew the cops were coming, he lay in wait with a gun, waiting for them to come in, knowing that (a) he had gotten rid of all the marijuana, except that (b) for some reason, he decided to leave a small amount of marijuana and his grow lights in the house?
I’m not sure my mind can wrap around this one.
#5 — The prosecution is admitting that all of its evidence that Frederick was growing pot came from two “burglars” who broke into his home.
They’ll soon have to admit that one of those “burglars” was their informant.
Which means they’ll have no choice but to concede that the informant who was working for the cops got his information–info they relied upon to get the search warrant–by illegally breaking into Frederick’s home.
The prosecutors arguments are simply illogical. Could they be trying to taint the jury pool by releasing bogus information? The prosecution has already filed for a change of venue and biased jury would encourage the defense to agree.
Radley — You know as well as I do that they’re going to be able to spin the “burglar as informant” into “a wayward individual who saw a marijuana grow operation, which is devastating to our community, and who, at great risk to his own freedom, decided to give the evidence to the police”. Especially if they manage to move the trial to a more favorable district.
One thing I really don’t get is the prosecutor using affidavits from citizens as evidence for a change of venue.
Radley, let’s not forget (feel free to delete this if it reveals too much) that burglars breaking in for the police may be SOP.
So does anyone know if this detached garage was heated? I lived in NJ for a dozen years which is basically next door and while its not a frigid tundra in january, 20-25 degree high temps and 10-15 degree low temps arent unheard of in mid january. I ask because the thought occured to me that he may have grown pot but certainly not in janauary. Thats y i figured the room was empty. Ive also asked the people i do know who like to indulge in the weed every now and again (yes me too) and everyone of them says if u have grow equip and u smoke weed, u will be growing at least some pot plants. Its inevitable. Everyone of them said the same thing. Temptation would get the best of them. None of that changes my view on this case however.
Using burglars as informants is the height of corruption. They should simply lock these scumbag informants up, not reward them for commiting crimes. Is there anything worse than a person who feels it’s OK to violate someone’s domain? I wouldn’t believe a word those informants said, as their character is already demonstrably quite flawed. There is no such thing as “American Justice” anymore. That’s why Americans need to start practicing JURY NULLIFICATION at every opportunity to bring an end to this corrupt system of so-called “justice.”
Nothing about this makes any sense. So he got rid of all of the MJ, yet still decided to kill a cop? What he didn’t want to go to jail for a minor drug offense, but instead wanted to take his chances with the electric chair? And we are supposed to take the word of criminal informants/burglars. Sorry, you guys are going to have to come up with better lies than that.
#12:
Using burglars as informants is bad enough. It appears, in this case, that the police either directly ordered these guys (who were in police custody at the time of the robbery) to break into Ryan’s house, or they suggested it and then looked away.
I think Brocoletti has the right idea by keeping his mouth shut for now. If he tries to make this a public issue rather than a legal one it could strengthen the argument for moving the case.
In other news… man, that’s some seriously egregious shit.
Oh and as a reminder to other would be legal eagles and law school drop-outs, Virginia has it’s court judgments online going back to ’87. Spend a weekend and write a few briefs on relevant case law. It beats wild conjecture and hand-wringing for quieting that rage you’re feeling :)
As prosecutor, Paul Ebert makes a lousy fiction writer. Ryan Fredericks would tell all this to someone who just broke into his house WHY? Only mad scientists in the movies are this dumb.
I think Paul Ebert should change his name to Mud.
Oh, and it’s obviously Ryan *Frederick.* Man, you were right, Kit. I gotta lay off them allergy meds. ; )
Any person involved in the raid who knew, or should reasonably have believed, that all the warrant was issued on the basis of illegally-obtained evidence that was fraudulently represented to the court, should be prosecuted for felony murder. Ryan Frederick should be regarded as a hero.
I was at the pre-trial motion hearing Tuesday and have posted my observations at TidewaterLiberty.com
Don
This story doesn’t make sense, none of it does. The idea that Ryan was lying in wait to kill a cop is, just stupid. Really, just stupid.
But, what I don’t get is why the cops targeted him in the first place. I mean, the story is that the informant is an ex of his sister or something, and has a grudge against Ryan? Okay, but why would the cops get involved in this petty squabble?
Don’t get me wrong – I don’t believe Ryan is guilty of anything. I just don’t understand why the police decided to “target” him. I’m not saying that I believe any of this prosecutor’s story, I just would like to know what’s really going on.
If a man’s freedom weren’t at stake, this would be hilarious.
So, the prosecution’s basic narrative here is that Ryan Frederick is so stupid that -
Frederick knew in advance that the police were coming to raid his “grow operation” and that he “had a plan” for them.
Frederick announced that plan to known police informants. (Apparently, letting the police know that he had a plan was part of the plan. Very devious.)
Frederick cleaned out his alleged grow operation.
After making sure there was no evidence against him, he planned to lay in wait to engage in a gunfight with armed police. Nevermind that he was only facing charges for a small-time grow operation that likely couldn’t be proven anyway. And nevermind that, such a confrontation would likely get him killed and that, even if no one had actually been hurt, it would result in the harshest possible prosecution.
If the prosecution’s account were true, Frederick’s lawyer would have a pretty tight case that Frederick lacks mental competence to stand trial, because no one who isn’t an outright moron would execute such a plan.
Moreover, knowing that Frederick had an obvious death wish, the prosecution is claiming that the police decided to do exactly as Frederick’s plan required and raid his home, rather than just arresting him at work or on the way to the grocery store. I would say the prosecution has a pretty tight case for police incompetence as well.
And, of course, that isn’t even going into why “informants” working with the police would choose to contaminate evidence and warn Frederick by stealing half of his “crop” a few days before the raid. And, it’s convenient that a person charged with growing significant amounts of marijuana would be raided only to be actually found with insignificant amounts, the sort that would fit into the pocket of a raider.
If he did know who broke in and did threaten them its not unlikley that the informant then told police the grow-op was huge so they would come for him. The police at best were “victims” of bad info but that scenario leaves Ryan a victim as well and would bring suspicion back to police procedures so the prosecutor has to make ryan out to be a psycho.
That was excellent, Don. Allowing cameras in the courtroom is really great news.
“Bullshit. Not even in eco-nazi areas of California do the police pick up the casings of their own bullets and take them with them.”
.223 brass is really expensive. I know I occasionally dropped brass I picked up from the range when I was in the Army. Considering how horribly illogical the rest of this cover-up is, I’m inclined to believe this part.
“Bullshit. Not even in eco-nazi areas of California do the police pick up the casings of their own bullets and take them with them.”
What they probably meant is that a .223 casing had inadvertently landed in the cop’s pocket (or in some other crevice on his person) while he was firing his AR-15 earlier, and then it fell out during the commotion of the raid. When firing a gun in an indoor range, there is usually a lane divider to your right and left. Casings fly out of a gun with considerable force, hit the divider wall, and sometimes bounce right back at you. I have had casings bounce back into my pocket before, and I didn’t notice it until I took my clothes out of the dryer, and found a casing lying at the bottom of the dryer.
I agree with Alex that that portion of the prosecutions otherwise egregiously bogus story is actually believable, so long as there isn’t a .223 round lodged somewhere in Frederick’s house.
The “dropped brass” theory is plausible, even if less than believable.
To determine believability, I’d have to see a dissection of the wall. You know, that wall, the one with the bullet hole that the police plastered over just hours after the raid.
While it’s plausible that the brass was errant range brass accidentally deposited by a SWAT officer, it’s also plausible that it was ejected on the scene by whichever rifle launched the bullet that penetrated the aforementioned wall in Frederick’s house.
And finally, I really want to know how many officers were actually on the scene during the initial raid.
So do they have to put whatever informant says that Frederick called him and said that BS that Ebert said on the stand? Otherwise how is it anything but hearsay? This WHOLE thing sounds like it’s fed by a grudge one of these scumbag ‘informant’ criminals have against Frederick.
I think the prosecutor is giving out bogus information to help his motion to change venue. One of the factors that support moving trials is if pretrial publicity was erroneous. Of course, there is also a legal tenet that a party can not rely on errors it created, but you can throw tenets out when a cop is dead.
I am also wondering about pretrial procedure there. Specifically, whether there will be any motion to suppress evidence and a hearing on it, where the basis for and service of the warrant would be an issue. I would think you could get the marijuana kept out of trial based on 4th Amendment violations. If there is a 4th Amendment…
If Frederick’s lawyer hasn’t asked for the citizen affidavits and isn’t out getting his own to keep the trial where it is, then he’s really dropping the ball.
What hogwash.
My wife and I manage a business about a mile from Mr. Fredericks home. Several of his neighbors are customers of mine – a couple have known Mr. Frederick since he was very young.
You have to appreciate that his is a very close-knit neighborhood – everyone over there knows how many pimples everyone else has on their backside…
No one that I have talked to, knows of, or believes in ANY illegal grow operation that Mr. Frederick is involved in, and all of them are aware of his growing various plants (Bananas, Japanese Maples. etc.) in his detached garage, for horticultural purposes – he has an interest in horticulture and is landscaping (or was) his yard.
He has the absolute support and belief of everyone that knows him, that he is an honest, decent and hard-working young man, that happens to blow a little reefer from time to time…
John Wilburn, I think your observation indicates why the prosecutor is trying so hard to contaminate the local jury pool and get the venue changed to another area. He is hoping to pull the typical fraud of publicly smearing the defendant as a “cop-killing drug dealer”, but the support shown for Frederick by the people who know him has the prosecutor worried that the prosecutor’s story doesn’t pass the smell test in your community.
In a just world, the case would be thrown out for lack of credible evidence, any officer who conspired in the frame-up would be charged with obstruction (for starters), and the elected officialdom supporting the Frederick’s prosecution would be voted out of office in November.
freedomfan, from what accounts are available in a just world the prosecutor would be in jail for attempting to pervert the course of justice.
Unless there is something very important missing from the public accounts (unlikely) then if I was on the jury I would return a verdict of innocent on counts, not just not guilty. That is I would declare that not only had the prosecution not proved its case but that it had proven its own case to be false and proven it false beyond reasonable doubt. Furthermore I would declare that the prosecution should have known this and its continuing with the case could only be attributed to willful blindness. That being so I would announce a write in verdict of guilty of of attempting to pervert the course of justice against the prosecutors.
I suggest that such write in verdicts might be a good way of slapping down egregious prosecution abuses of power.